Outgoing regime,
unaddressed violations
A Statement by the Asian
Human Rights Commission on the occasion of Human Rights Day
December 10, 2015
The Philippines sees routine
investigations on targeted killings, torture, arbitrary arrests and
detention, all of which end up without enough evidence to prosecute
the perpetrators. When prosecutions are initiated, those with the most
guilt and evidence for prosecution are routinely excluded from
criminal complaint. Court trials, time consuming and costly for
victims, largely end with key perpetrators acquitted for their crimes.
These are the Asian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) observations on
the pattern of human rights violations, not only in 2015, but over the
past ten years of documenting abuses, particularly those linked to the
security forces.
To term these violations as ‘continuing’, would be superficial
however, if not simplistic. It distracts from the fundamental
question: why are these violations occurring in the first place? These
violations, mostly targeted at the poor, vulnerable and marginalized
sections of society, are routinely and widely reported in the
country’s newspapers, radio and TV. So, why is it that those needing
protection the most have no protection? In most cases, those who
should be investigated, prosecuted and convicted, simply get away with
their crimes and continue with their lives.
In the past, targeted attacks on human rights and political activists
were orchestrated and equated as counter-insurgency measures. Strong
condemnation, local and international, resulted in a drop in the
number of killings in 2007. At present, there are similar attacks on
indigenous people, with the same justification used by the same
military establishment, under a different regime. Under the Aquino
administration, the killings, torture and abduction of victims are
‘economic oriented’.
The state’s economic policy – exploration of mineral resources,
opening plantations to export crops, etc. in countryside – have led to
massive displacement of indigenous people. In Mindanao, a combination
of aerial attacks and foot soldiers, on the pretext of pursuing
rebels, has displaced villagers in upland communities. Those who
oppose these incursions – community leaders, NGOs assisting tribal
groups, villagers officials – are executed on the pretext of being
rebels. In other words, the military is equating a person legitimately
demanding the protection of his and others’ rights as being an armed
rebel.
These violations are often a byproduct of the state’s security and
economic policies. While the military has been in a state of
protracted war against rebels and militants for some time, military
officers have now also become ‘private security forces’ for big
corporations. By law, the state is obligated to protect the
investments of corporations. This makes the deployment of military
forces in upland communities justifiable, transforming the behaviour
of the security forces to protect corporations, not villagers.
Moreover, there are no repercussions for the violations committed by
the soldiers. Those who oppose them are routinely arrested, detained,
tortured and killed, and all this is justified by saying the opponents
were rebels.
When the state is complicit in human rights abuse, where do
prevention, redress and remedy fit in? This can be understood by
examining how investigations and prosecutions are conducted.
The police, whose chief is appointed by the President, investigates
cases of violations by default. In most cases that are political in
nature, like the killing of indigenous people, the ordinary
investigation process does not seem to operate. It is the prosecutors
and their superior – the secretary of justice – who selectively
prosecutes cases, routinely excluding those who are guilty. The AHRC
has documented numerous cases of such actions taken by the police and
prosecutors.
The solution to the protracted, ongoing, and becoming routine human
rights violations by security forces requires both political and
institutional measures. When Aquino assumed power in 2010, his agenda
was to reaffirm the protection of rights. To this end, he promised
justice to the families of the Maguindanao massacre. He will step down
from office a few months from now, in June 2016, and his promise is
yet to be fulfilled.
Aquino assumed office from the widely unpopular President Arroyo,
whose regime was either equal to or worse than that of Marcos when it
came to human rights violations. As in the case of the late Cory
Aquino’s regime, Aquino has failed to alter pervasive political and
institutional violations. Human rights laws are not enforced
effectively, and never result in punishment. The Anti-Torture Act of
2009 has not convicted a single perpetrator. Soldiers and policemen
involved in gross violations of rights, like retired general Jovito
Palparan, continue to roam free.
To date, both political change – from Arroyo to Aquino – and
institutional change – from laws lacking protection of rights to more
laws – have failed to alter the pervasive violation of rights existing
in the Philippines. Not only are those in need of protection left
alone, but the state is now committing violations as a result of its
security and economic policies, which will go unpunished. It is time
for the Philippines to examine how it can implement the laws
protecting human rights and punish the perpetrators.